Our clients and experience in the area of dominance and monopoly enquiries include:

	Google/Microsoft:
	RBB advised Google during the European Commission's investigation into Microsoft’s tying of Internet Explorer with Windows. RBB made submissions to the Commission on behalf of Google. The Commission concluded that Microsoft’s practices were likely to have adverse effects on competition in the market for internet browsers and a number of related markets, and reached a settlement with Microsoft in which browser choice was opened up.
	AMD/Intel:
	RBB advised AMD during the investigation by the European Commission into Intel exclusionary practices. RBB submitted evidence to the Commission on behalf of AMD on a wide range of issues, including market definition and Intel’s dominance, and, in particular, substantiating the as efficient competitor test as applied to exclusionary discounts. The Commission ultimately concluded that Intel had abused its position of dominance in the supply of microprocessors by, inter alia, engaging in discounts conditional on (near) exclusivity.
	T-Mobile:
	RBB assisted T-Mobile Germany in an abuse of dominance investigation by the European Commission in relation to allegedly excessive international roaming tariffs (tariffs charged by mobile operators for making international calls and making calls abroad). The Commission ultimately decided to close the case, after having sent a Statement of Objections, without issuing a decision.
	UPC:
	RBB assisted Dutch cable operator UPC in responding to an excessive pricing investigation by the Dutch competition authority (NMa). The NMa concluded that UPC had not charged excessive prices for cable TV services.
	Qualcomm:
	RBB advised a group of firms (including Broadcom, TI, Ericsson, NEC, Nokia and Panasonic) in the preparation of their complaint to the European Commission about the licensing and pricing practices of Qualcomm, in relation to patents and products used in 3G mobile telephony. In particular, RBB developed the theoretical economic framework for assessing whether an IPR licence may breach a FRAND commitment, thereby resulting in consumer harm.
	Mobistar:
	RBB economists were asked by Mobistar to analyse whether the pricing behaviour adopted by Belgacom Mobile, particularly with respect to on-net calls, gave rise to an anticompetitive margin squeeze. This assessment was undertaken on the basis of the framework set out by the Tribunal of Commerce of Brussels in S.A. Base and S.A Mobistar v S.A. Belgacom Mobile and included a calculation of damages suffered by Mobistar.
	Virgin Media/BSkyB:
	RBB acted as economic experts for Virgin Media during an action brought in the High Court against BSkyB. Virgin Media alleged that the defendant had engaged in anti-competitive abuse of dominance during the negotiation of carriage fees for the broadcast of the two firms’ programming on their respective cable and satellite pay-TV platforms. RBB reviewed quantitative and documentary evidence from both firms to provide an independent assessment of these allegations. The action settled out of court in November 2008.
	Telstra:
	RBB assisted the Australian telecoms incumbent Telstra in response to an investigation by the national telecoms regulator of alleged margin squeeze. Bundling and implied prices of unbundled products were part of the investigation.
	A pay-TV company:
	RBB provided economic advice to a European retailer of basic and premium pay-TV channels on issues relating to margin squeeze and mixed bundling.
	A confidential pipeline access case:
	RBB recently worked on the preliminary stages of a litigation case involving access to a pipeline for transporting bulk chemicals amid allegations of margin squeeze occurring between the prices charged by the pipeline operator for delivery of the relevant chemicals and its pipeline access charges.
	Scandinavian Airlines System:
	RBB advised SAS in connection with in-depth investigations by the Norwegian Competition Authority into alleged predatory pricing in the Norwegian airline market in 2005. Following a successful appeal against the Authority’s decision, the fine against SAS was annulled.
	British Airways/Eurostar:
	RBB advised British Airways on its complaint against Eurostar for predatory pricing before the French Conseil de la Concurrence. The report prepared by RBB was quoted extensively in the Conseil's decision to open a formal investigation. The complaint was ultimately dismissed because Eurostar passed the relevant cost tests.
	Aberdeen Journals:
	RBB acted for Aberdeen Journals in connection with the OFT investigation into predatory pricing allegations in the local newspapers sector. We also acted as experts on the subsequent appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The economists on this case helped to analyse market definition and price-cost margins in order to assist the client in dealing with the investigation.
	Nationwide v SAA / Comair/BA v SAA:
	RBB advised South African Airways in relation to damage claims before the South African High Court arising from an abuse of dominance investigation regarding the incentive arrangements offered to travel agents.
	FHH v EWS:
	RBB advised FHH in relation to a damage claim before the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, submitting an expert report to the court. The claim for damages followed a 2006 finding by the UK rail regulator that EWS abused its dominant position by entering into exclusionary contracts, discriminating against ECSL and engaging in predatory pricing. The parties have since reached a commercially negotiated settlement to the damages claim.
	Attheraces:
	RBB economists advised horse racing information service Attheraces in its action against the British Horse racing Board (BHB) before the English High Court. The Court ruled that BHB had abused its dominance of the supply of race data, engaging in both excessive and discriminatory pricing. This judgment was later overturned by the Court of Appeal, following which the parties reached an amicable settlement to their dispute.
	The Coca-Cola Company:
	RBB advised Coca-Cola (plus affected bottling companies) in connection with the European Commission investigation into a variety of rebate and contractual practices that were alleged to foreclose competition in the commercial beverages sector. The inquiry was closed in 2005 with the adoption of undertakings by Coca-Cola to limit various aspects of its pricing and commercial policies.
	Ticketmaster:
	RBB advised Ticketmaster on a number of separate competition law investigations into its pricing policies and the impact of long term exclusive agreements with retailers and promoters. This work included advice in connection with an OFT investigation into the ticket sales industry that concluded (in 2004) that there was no competition problem with such contracts, plus a number of other ongoing investigations in other European jurisdictions including Ireland, Sweden and the Netherlands.
	Crown (CarnaudMetalbox):
	RBB advised Crown Holdings, the global packaging materials producer, in connection with formal proceedings under Article 102 against alleged abuses arising from long term exclusive contracts. Our expert report was presented at the Oral Hearing on the case, and was instrumental in persuading the Commission to drop the case.
	Napp Pharmaceuticals:
	Economists from RBB acted as economic experts to Napp throughout this UK Competition Act Chapter II investigation by the OFT and the subsequent appeal to the UK Competition Appeals Tribunal. The case concerned exclusionary pricing, price discrimination and alleged excessive pricing by Napp in the sale of a niche pharmaceutical product. The economic work analysed the unusual features of the industry, the dangers of imposing excess pricing rulings in the context of dynamic research-based industries such as pharmaceuticals, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged exclusionary prices.
	An international biotech company:
	RBB advised a major biotech company in connection with EC Commission investigations under Article 102 into allegations that patent licensing conditions and fees imposed by our client amounted to exclusionary and/or excessive pricing.
	IMS Health:
	economists from RBB advised IMS Health in connection with Article 102 investigations into a variety of business practices involving the pricing of pharmaceutical market research products. The work focused initially on exclusionary pricing concerns and subsequently moved to the essential facility questions relating to copyright licensing of the IMS "brick structure" in Germany.
	A ferry port operator:
	RBB economists were asked to analyse essential facilities and refusal to supply for a client involved in a domestic litigation case in which a plaintiff claimed damages for our client’s refusal to supply access to its ferry port to competing operators. The analysis assessed the claim that the port was an essential facility by reference to the relevant economic theory and the market evidence, demonstrating that the plaintiff had clear and viable options to make alternative arrangements. The case was settled prior to trial.
	Unilever (impulse ice cream):
	RBB economists have worked for Unilever's impulse ice cream business on a number of separate competition law investigations into the alleged exclusionary effects of practices such as freezer and outlet exclusivity, and wholesale distribution arrangements and retailer discounts. This work has involved advice on numerous EC jurisdictions, including three successive investigations by the UK authorities and assistance on the Commission’s investigation (and the subsequent CFI appeal) on the Irish case involving Van den Bergh Foods.